The email arrived on Sunday: Capgemini would shutter its American subsidiary. For weeks, whispers about the ICE contract had haunted the office. Now, the other shoe had dropped, leaving many wondering what went wrong with Capgemini Government Solutions’ $365 million (€338 million) deal.
Capgemini was tagged as the lead contractor for ICE’s new surveillance dragnet, designed to “skip-trace” immigrants. This technique, typically used by debt collectors to find individuals, had never been deployed by ICE before. It’s a stark illustration of how private sector technologies can be repurposed, sometimes problematically, for government use.
The program tasked ten companies with tracking 50,000 immigrants monthly. The Washington Post reported that these companies would first pinpoint where immigrants live and work using “all technology systems available,” and then verify it through “physical, in-person surveillance,” including photography. The Intercept noted the contracts could have earned the companies over $925 million (€857 million) by the end of the following year.
Capgemini Government Solutions, the U.S. arm of the European tech giant, stood to gain the most. According to Capgemini CEO Aiman Ezzat, they’ve been working with the Department of Homeland Security for over 15 years.
Public backlash against ICE has intensified. Protests are targeting companies that enable ICE’s efforts. Nationwide general strikes and boycotts are gaining traction. Hundreds of tech workers signed a letter urging companies to drop ICE contracts. Even Italians protested as ICE agents arrived in Milan for the Winter Olympics. The French, too, have voiced their discontent.
Following the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents in Minneapolis, scrutiny of Capgemini’s DHS work intensified in France. Union workers and officials, including French Economy Minister Roland Lescure, called for a contract review.
Last week, an independent board began that contract review, Ezzat confirmed.
“We were recently made aware, through public sources, of the nature of a contract awarded to CGS by DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement in December 2025. The nature and scope of this work has raised questions compared to what we typically do as a business and technology firm,” he stated in a LinkedIn post last Sunday.
A week later, the review concluded. Capgemini stated in a press release that “the customary legal restrictions imposed for contracting with federal government entities carrying out classified activities in the United States did not allow the Group to exercise appropriate control over certain aspects of the operations of this subsidiary to ensure alignment with the Group’s objectives.”
The Geopolitical Backdrop
Consider France’s broader stance. This divestment comes during heightened tension between France and the U.S., a relationship that’s been strained since the previous administration. Think of it as a chess game, with each nation strategically positioning its pieces.
There’s been rising anti-American sentiment in Europe. Early in the year, French citizens boycotted Tesla (due to Elon Musk’s ties to the administration) and other brands perceived as overtly American, like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s.
As trade friction escalates, French officials are limiting American tech in government spaces. They’ve also urged the EU to confront U.S. tariff threats, potentially restricting digital services from companies like Meta and Google. France seems to be drawing a line in the sand, asserting its digital sovereignty.
What exactly is “skip-tracing” and why is it controversial?
Skip-tracing, at its core, is about locating someone who is difficult to find. Imagine trying to find a single person in a stadium filled with thousands; skip-tracing provides the methods to narrow the search. Traditionally, it’s used by debt collectors, private investigators, and process servers to track down individuals. However, its application by ICE raises significant ethical questions. When used to locate immigrants, it raises concerns about privacy violations and potential misuse of personal information.
The Core Question: Control
Capgemini’s statement about “control” hints at deeper issues. What does it mean when a global company feels it can’t adequately oversee a subsidiary’s operations? It suggests a potential disconnect between corporate values and the realities of government contracting. The company essentially claimed that federal legal restrictions made it impossible for them to align Capgemini Government Solutions work with corporate goals. This raises a serious question for any organization considering government contracts, particularly those involving sensitive issues.
What measures are in place to oversee ICE contracts and ensure accountability?
Oversight of ICE contracts is a multilayered, but often criticized, process. Government agencies, like the DHS Office of Inspector General, are responsible for auditing contracts and investigating potential misconduct. Additionally, Congress can hold hearings and demand accountability from ICE officials and contractors. However, many argue that these measures are insufficient, pointing to a lack of transparency and inadequate enforcement mechanisms. Public advocacy groups and media outlets also play a vital role in monitoring ICE’s activities and bringing potential abuses to light.
The Future of Tech and Immigration
The Capgemini situation is not isolated. Other tech companies face similar pressure regarding their involvement in immigration enforcement. This case could set a precedent, forcing companies to carefully weigh the ethical implications of their work with government agencies. This could be a watershed moment, one where values are deemed more critical than profit.
What impact will this have on other companies involved in similar contracts?
The long-term effects remain to be seen, but the message is clear: public scrutiny can impact even the largest companies. Will other companies reassess their ICE contracts? Will governments become more selective in their partnerships? And, most importantly, will this lead to more humane and ethical approaches to immigration enforcement?